Let me try again: Did you follow the conference? Read any of the contributions?
No. Please post links if available. I will admit before reading the material, that I have serious doubts that the outcome of the conference was in question before the actual conference started.
No. Please post links if available. I will admit before reading the material, that I have serious doubts that the outcome of the conference was in question before the actual conference started.
So you question the intentions of UTA? Who do you trust then?
I have some of the contributions as paper extracts but I´m sure you´ll be able to find a lot of material on the net.
The participants (Notice the lack of Palestinian speakers. Its probably because most of the people involved from Israel and US doesn´t have the same stakes in the process anymore and can talk more freely about the event.):
So Israel comes to the table with an offer brokered by Clinton. The 3 parties spend 15 days hammering it out and Arafat Rejects it. Arafat also publically states that any agreement with Israel will be used only as a step in the primary goal of eliminating Israel and any treaties will be broken when they serve this goal. But, he is still not held responsible? Let me guess who is to blame.
A treaty at that point in time didn't serve the purposes he wanted. I am sure if he could have gotten more consessions, he might have gone with it. But, he wanted to make sure his position after the treay was improved enough that he could take the next step in his well known overall goals.
Just because he admitted that anything he signed with the jews was breakable and was to be used only as a tactic in the overall strategy, doesn't mean that he's going to sign everything.
From everything I've read Arafat was correct to refuse that deal. Israel kept the entire border along Syria, blocking the Palestinians from trade there, and kept control of the aquifers as well. It was a rigged deal from the start, almost an impossibility.
From everything I've read Arafat was correct to refuse that deal. Israel kept the entire border along Syria, blocking the Palestinians from trade there, and kept control of the aquifers as well. It was a rigged deal from the start, almost an impossibility.
It was meant to be a start. You expect Israel to compromise, even if it means continued bombs on busses, but you find it unreasonable for the Palestinians to have accepted that as a beginning to further negotiations?
And as far as why Arafat refused, from the article Anders linked to, it had little to do with the actual issues, like borders and water. Instead, the Palestinians from the artcile blame it more on Arafat took offence that Barak wouldn't meet with him one-on-one. Don't know if that is true, but he sure seemed inclined to see it die, even before he showed up. "Don't blame me if it fails"
You expect Palestinians to compromise, even if it means continued helicopter attacks, increased settlements, curfews and poverty.
No, I expect the Paletinians to compromise, if not blowing up bus riders is a compromise, which would in turn lead to discontinued helicopter attacks against terror leaders. The point of the road map is that both sides 'compromise', and violence de-escalates. As it progresses, settlements continue to be removed, as they have started now; Israeli troops are removed from PA areas, as they are now. I would then expect the Palestinian side to reciprocate and actually stop blowing up pedestrians and actually start enforcing their end of the bargain.
The difference, I think, in your view and mine, is that I see both sides and being responsibe for upholding their end of the deal. You only require Israel to do so. As you said, if Israel does implement, and continues to have cafes, busses, discos and other civilians and civilian targets blown off the map, they should just suck it up, let it happen and not respond, in order to achieve peace. That doesn't sound like peace to me.
No, I expect the Paletinians to compromise, if not blowing up bus riders is a compromise, which would in turn lead to discontinued helicopter attacks against terror leaders. The point of the road map is that both sides 'compromise', and violence de-escalates. As it progresses, settlements continue to be removed, as they have started now; Israeli troops are removed from PA areas, as they are now. I would then expect the Palestinian side to reciprocate and actually stop blowing up pedestrians and actually start enforcing their end of the bargain.
The difference, I think, in your view and mine, is that I see both sides and being responsibe for upholding their end of the deal. You only require Israel to do so. As you said, if Israel does implement, and continues to have cafes, busses, discos and other civilians and civilian targets blown off the map, they should just suck it up, let it happen and not respond, in order to achieve peace. That doesn't sound like peace to me.
The point of the road map is that both sides 'compromise', and violence de-escalates.
And historically this has not happened.
Quote:
Originally posted by Tulkas
As it progresses, settlements continue to be removed, as they have started now; Israeli troops are removed from PA areas, as they are now.
And historically this has not happened.
Quote:
Originally posted by Tulkas
I would then expect the Palestinian side to reciprocate and actually stop blowing up pedestrians and actually start enforcing their end of the bargain.
And do you accept that they will reciprocate helicopter attacks that occur during cease-fire negotiations with attacks of their own?
Quote:
Originally posted by Tulkas
The difference, I think, in your view and mine, is that I see both sides and being responsibe for upholding their end of the deal. You only require Israel to do so.
And do you accept that they will reciprocate helicopter attacks that occur during cease-fire negotiations with attacks of their own?
No, though I hoped otherwise, I fully expected some palestinian group to launch attacks against civilians during the ceasefire. By yesterday (monday) there had been 2 attacks against Israel, less than a day after the 3 palestinian groups agreed to a ceasefre. In response, those evil Israeli bastards continued to pull troops out and handed over control of more areas. They removed road blocks too.
The difference, I think, in your view and mine, is that I see both sides and being responsibe for upholding their end of the deal. You only require Israel to do so.
Israel needs to work out an agreement regardless. When someone other than the government of the non-state of not-Palestine tried to intercede, it must be ignored.
So, by your own words, so long as it aint't the PA blowing up the busses, they must be ignored, allowing all the little groups and factions free reign to carry on with blowing up cafes and bus stops with no reprisals. Which is essentially, holding only Israel to their end of the bargain. Pretty much exactly what figured. So, I guess we do have that difference I mentioned above..I would see both sides held to the agreement, you only require Israel to be restrained. (Oh, and I guess the PA, but no non-govenment bodies, like oh, hamas, fatah, IJ, PFLP...etc)
Careful. When in negotiations, both sides need to 'turn the other cheek' in order for progress to be made. Even after an eventual solution is found, there will still be attacks from the extremes on both sides. That doesn't mean there should be a war.
In a long-awaited report that could put more strain on relations between Israel's Jews and minority Arabs, an Israeli state inquiry reprimanded police for killing 13 Israeli Arabs in pro-Palestinian protests three years ago.
But the findings by the Or Commission did not recommend any action against then-prime minister Ehud Barak (news - web sites), clearing any legal barriers to a widely expected attempt at a political comeback by the former Labor Party leader.
Israeli Arab groups denounced the report as a whitewash that failed to punish politicians overseeing police who fired live ammunition at citizens of the Jewish state during stone-throwing demonstrations.
The creation of the commission into the deaths in October 2000, soon after the start of the latest Palestinian uprising for independence in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, was widely seen as an attempt to appease Israel's outraged Arab minority.
After nearly three years of testimony, the commission found that police commanders committed errors of judgment when their forces shot at the demonstrators in the northern Galilee region.
The three-member Supreme Court panel recommended the dismissal of several top officers and that others no longer be allowed to hold senior security posts.
Israeli Arabs, comprising 18 percent of Israel's population, have long complained of institutionalized discrimination.
Now if Israel blames themselves for this, are any of the Israeli apologists going to change their point of view? I mean, there have been countless arguments here that Israel was justified in killing those protesters, and that the Palestinians are at fault. Israel disagrees.
As it progresses, settlements continue to be removed, as they have started now; Israeli troops are removed from PA areas, as they are now.
Yes, but Tulkas, this simply is not true.
I'll say that again: this is simply wrong.
Israel is putting out tenders for new settlements and confiscating land both in Jerusalem and along the wall.
I don't understand: why (just tell me) why do you say this? What's your evidence? If I show you evidence that what you're saying is false, would that change your point of view wrt Israel?
Israel is putting out tenders for new settlements and confiscating land both in Jerusalem and along the wall.
I don't understand: why (just tell me) why do you say this? What's your evidence? If I show you evidence that what you're saying is false, would that change your point of view wrt Israel?
And the next sadly obvious question:
Why not?
Once again Harald, you are a liar or again confused.
Look at the date on my post that you replied to. At the time Israel was starting to remove settlements and was pulling troops out of some of the villages.
Sorry, but it was simply a fact, not simply wrong.
Look at the date on my post that you replied to. At the time Israel was starting to remove settlements and was pulling troops out of some of the villages.
Actually I think this is not true. They might remove some settlements, but they're increasing their land mass.
Comments
Originally posted by Anders
Let me try again: Did you follow the conference? Read any of the contributions?
No. Please post links if available. I will admit before reading the material, that I have serious doubts that the outcome of the conference was in question before the actual conference started.
Originally posted by Tulkas
No. Please post links if available. I will admit before reading the material, that I have serious doubts that the outcome of the conference was in question before the actual conference started.
So you question the intentions of UTA? Who do you trust then?
I have some of the contributions as paper extracts but I´m sure you´ll be able to find a lot of material on the net.
A english languaed link:
http://www.themedialine.org/news/new...sp?NewsID=2163
The participants (Notice the lack of Palestinian speakers. Its probably because most of the people involved from Israel and US doesn´t have the same stakes in the process anymore and can talk more freely about the event.):
http://www.kas.de/veranstaltungen/788_webseite.html
Originally posted by Tulkas
So Israel comes to the table with an offer brokered by Clinton. The 3 parties spend 15 days hammering it out and Arafat Rejects it. Arafat also publically states that any agreement with Israel will be used only as a step in the primary goal of eliminating Israel and any treaties will be broken when they serve this goal. But, he is still not held responsible? Let me guess who is to blame.
So what in your mind 'killed the deal'?
Originally posted by bunge
So what in your mind 'killed the deal'?
Arafat.
A treaty at that point in time didn't serve the purposes he wanted. I am sure if he could have gotten more consessions, he might have gone with it. But, he wanted to make sure his position after the treay was improved enough that he could take the next step in his well known overall goals.
Just because he admitted that anything he signed with the jews was breakable and was to be used only as a tactic in the overall strategy, doesn't mean that he's going to sign everything.
Originally posted by Tulkas
Arafat.
From everything I've read Arafat was correct to refuse that deal. Israel kept the entire border along Syria, blocking the Palestinians from trade there, and kept control of the aquifers as well. It was a rigged deal from the start, almost an impossibility.
Originally posted by bunge
From everything I've read Arafat was correct to refuse that deal. Israel kept the entire border along Syria, blocking the Palestinians from trade there, and kept control of the aquifers as well. It was a rigged deal from the start, almost an impossibility.
It was meant to be a start. You expect Israel to compromise, even if it means continued bombs on busses, but you find it unreasonable for the Palestinians to have accepted that as a beginning to further negotiations?
And as far as why Arafat refused, from the article Anders linked to, it had little to do with the actual issues, like borders and water. Instead, the Palestinians from the artcile blame it more on Arafat took offence that Barak wouldn't meet with him one-on-one. Don't know if that is true, but he sure seemed inclined to see it die, even before he showed up. "Don't blame me if it fails"
Originally posted by Tulkas
You expect Israel to compromise, even if it means continued bombs on busses...
You expect Palestinians to compromise, even if it means continued helicopter attacks, increased settlements, curfews and poverty.
Originally posted by bunge
You expect Palestinians to compromise, even if it means continued helicopter attacks, increased settlements, curfews and poverty.
No, I expect the Paletinians to compromise, if not blowing up bus riders is a compromise, which would in turn lead to discontinued helicopter attacks against terror leaders. The point of the road map is that both sides 'compromise', and violence de-escalates. As it progresses, settlements continue to be removed, as they have started now; Israeli troops are removed from PA areas, as they are now. I would then expect the Palestinian side to reciprocate and actually stop blowing up pedestrians and actually start enforcing their end of the bargain.
The difference, I think, in your view and mine, is that I see both sides and being responsibe for upholding their end of the deal. You only require Israel to do so. As you said, if Israel does implement, and continues to have cafes, busses, discos and other civilians and civilian targets blown off the map, they should just suck it up, let it happen and not respond, in order to achieve peace. That doesn't sound like peace to me.
Originally posted by Tulkas
No, I expect the Paletinians to compromise, if not blowing up bus riders is a compromise, which would in turn lead to discontinued helicopter attacks against terror leaders. The point of the road map is that both sides 'compromise', and violence de-escalates. As it progresses, settlements continue to be removed, as they have started now; Israeli troops are removed from PA areas, as they are now. I would then expect the Palestinian side to reciprocate and actually stop blowing up pedestrians and actually start enforcing their end of the bargain.
The difference, I think, in your view and mine, is that I see both sides and being responsibe for upholding their end of the deal. You only require Israel to do so. As you said, if Israel does implement, and continues to have cafes, busses, discos and other civilians and civilian targets blown off the map, they should just suck it up, let it happen and not respond, in order to achieve peace. That doesn't sound like peace to me.
Very well said Tulkas, I agree with this view.
Fellows
Originally posted by Tulkas
The point of the road map is that both sides 'compromise', and violence de-escalates.
And historically this has not happened.
Originally posted by Tulkas
As it progresses, settlements continue to be removed, as they have started now; Israeli troops are removed from PA areas, as they are now.
And historically this has not happened.
Originally posted by Tulkas
I would then expect the Palestinian side to reciprocate and actually stop blowing up pedestrians and actually start enforcing their end of the bargain.
And do you accept that they will reciprocate helicopter attacks that occur during cease-fire negotiations with attacks of their own?
Originally posted by Tulkas
The difference, I think, in your view and mine, is that I see both sides and being responsibe for upholding their end of the deal. You only require Israel to do so.
Wrong.
Originally posted by bunge
And do you accept that they will reciprocate helicopter attacks that occur during cease-fire negotiations with attacks of their own?
No, though I hoped otherwise, I fully expected some palestinian group to launch attacks against civilians during the ceasefire. By yesterday (monday) there had been 2 attacks against Israel, less than a day after the 3 palestinian groups agreed to a ceasefre. In response, those evil Israeli bastards continued to pull troops out and handed over control of more areas. They removed road blocks too.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Tulkas
The difference, I think, in your view and mine, is that I see both sides and being responsibe for upholding their end of the deal. You only require Israel to do so.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by bunge
Wrong.
Well, you own words indicate otherwise.
Originally posted by bunge
Israel needs to work out an agreement regardless. When someone other than the government of the non-state of not-Palestine tried to intercede, it must be ignored.
So, by your own words, so long as it aint't the PA blowing up the busses, they must be ignored, allowing all the little groups and factions free reign to carry on with blowing up cafes and bus stops with no reprisals. Which is essentially, holding only Israel to their end of the bargain. Pretty much exactly what figured. So, I guess we do have that difference I mentioned above..I would see both sides held to the agreement, you only require Israel to be restrained. (Oh, and I guess the PA, but no non-govenment bodies, like oh, hamas, fatah, IJ, PFLP...etc)
Originally posted by Tulkas
Well, you own words indicate otherwise.
Careful. When in negotiations, both sides need to 'turn the other cheek' in order for progress to be made. Even after an eventual solution is found, there will still be attacks from the extremes on both sides. That doesn't mean there should be a war.
In a long-awaited report that could put more strain on relations between Israel's Jews and minority Arabs, an Israeli state inquiry reprimanded police for killing 13 Israeli Arabs in pro-Palestinian protests three years ago.
But the findings by the Or Commission did not recommend any action against then-prime minister Ehud Barak (news - web sites), clearing any legal barriers to a widely expected attempt at a political comeback by the former Labor Party leader.
Israeli Arab groups denounced the report as a whitewash that failed to punish politicians overseeing police who fired live ammunition at citizens of the Jewish state during stone-throwing demonstrations.
The creation of the commission into the deaths in October 2000, soon after the start of the latest Palestinian uprising for independence in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, was widely seen as an attempt to appease Israel's outraged Arab minority.
After nearly three years of testimony, the commission found that police commanders committed errors of judgment when their forces shot at the demonstrators in the northern Galilee region.
The three-member Supreme Court panel recommended the dismissal of several top officers and that others no longer be allowed to hold senior security posts.
Israeli Arabs, comprising 18 percent of Israel's population, have long complained of institutionalized discrimination.
Now if Israel blames themselves for this, are any of the Israeli apologists going to change their point of view? I mean, there have been countless arguments here that Israel was justified in killing those protesters, and that the Palestinians are at fault. Israel disagrees.
Originally posted by bunge
Now they're attacking religious leaders. Is JP2 next?
Terrorist religious leaders.
Originally posted by Tulkas
As it progresses, settlements continue to be removed, as they have started now; Israeli troops are removed from PA areas, as they are now.
Yes, but Tulkas, this simply is not true.
I'll say that again: this is simply wrong.
Israel is putting out tenders for new settlements and confiscating land both in Jerusalem and along the wall.
I don't understand: why (just tell me) why do you say this? What's your evidence? If I show you evidence that what you're saying is false, would that change your point of view wrt Israel?
And the next sadly obvious question:
Why not?
Originally posted by Harald
Yes, but Tulkas, this simply is not true.
I'll say that again: this is simply wrong.
Israel is putting out tenders for new settlements and confiscating land both in Jerusalem and along the wall.
I don't understand: why (just tell me) why do you say this? What's your evidence? If I show you evidence that what you're saying is false, would that change your point of view wrt Israel?
And the next sadly obvious question:
Why not?
Once again Harald, you are a liar or again confused.
Look at the date on my post that you replied to. At the time Israel was starting to remove settlements and was pulling troops out of some of the villages.
Sorry, but it was simply a fact, not simply wrong.
Originally posted by Tulkas
Look at the date on my post that you replied to. At the time Israel was starting to remove settlements and was pulling troops out of some of the villages.
Actually I think this is not true. They might remove some settlements, but they're increasing their land mass.